KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed a petition filed against the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) by the legal heirs of a late orthopaedic surgeon after the attachment of a property located in Malir Cantonment by the anti-graft watchdog.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro observed that after the death of Dr Nadeem Akber, his family members had challenged a notice of NAB, while concealing facts relating to the investigation and monetary transactions.

It also noted that the petitioners’ father had accepted money from an accused for the sale of the house in question and admitted such fact during the investigation.

The bench further said that petitioners had also failed to challenge the freezing and plea bargain orders, through which the subject property stood surrendered in favour of the government, and such orders passed by the trial court had attained finality and become a closed and past transaction.

Bench rules plea bargain and freezing orders had attained finality before surgeon’s death

Ibrahim Nadeem, along with three other family members, had petitioned the SHC in September last year, challenging a notice issued by NAB in April 2025 to surrender the property and the restrictions imposed by the cantonment board on the petitioners’ rights with respect to the subject property.

The petitioners submitted that Dr Akbar passed away in July 2025 after a prolonged battle with cancer, but his death may be traced to NAB and its officers’ harassment and their misuse of the powers vested in them.

They also contended that the late doctor had owned the house in question, located in Askari-V, Malir Cantonment, during his lifetime and that he was later diagnosed with cancer, which compelled him to travel frequently to the United States for treatment.

They also maintained that in 2025, Dr Akbar and his family sought to live in the house in question, but the cantonment board had soon apprised them that they could not move into the subject house as NAB had placed certain restrictions.

The petitioners further argued that the impugned notice claimed that Dr Akbar had sold the subject property to Ashique Hussain Kaleri, who had surrendered the same to NAB after entering into a plea bargain in a case relating to the embezzlement of funds in the M-6 Motorway project.

A federal law officer and special prosecutor NAB contended that the subject property was acquired by accused Kaleri, who had admitted his guilt and confessed that he had purchased the properties, including the subject property, through proceeds of crime.

They also contended that NAB had filed a reference in 2023 before an accountability court in Hyderabad, as well as an application for freezing the assets of the accused, which was allowed and during the pendency of the reference accused had entered into a plea bargain on surrender of the properties including the subject property and the same was accepted by NAB and approved by the trial court.

They further maintained that the father of the petitioners did not challenge both the orders passed by the trial court, which have attained finality.

The bench in its order noted that as per the record, in his statement before NAB, Dr Akbar had admitted that the subject property had been sold by him to accused Kaleri for Rs73,000,000 of which Rs68,000,000 was paid in cash to him, while the remaining amount was payable to him. An estate agent had also confirmed the sale of the subject property.

It also observed that the petitioners’ father was in knowledge of proceedings before the trial court, including freezing orders and approval of plea bargain in 2023, almost two years before his death, but he did not initiate a challenge to either of the orders.

“An inference can be drawn from the silence of Dr Nadeem Akber that he was not aggrieved of the proceedings by NAB. Had it been the case, he ought to have lodged appropriate application before trial court,” it added.

The bench further said that the petitioners challenged the impugned notice without disclosing material facts, and the assertion of the petitioners appeared to be an afterthought plea to get dual benefits.

“On the death of Dr Nadeem Akber petitioners by concealing the facts of investigation and monetary transactions, by twisting the story challenged the impugned notice before this court under its writ jurisdiction. Petitioners if were aggrieved of the freezing order, or the surrender order, they were required to file objections before trial court under Section 13 of NAO, 1999 seeking an extension in time, and an appeal before high court within ten days against the decision on the objections. The petitioners chose to remain silent, thus the freezing orders and surrender orders attained finality,” it added.

It noted that petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the impugned notice issued in compliance with the order passed by the trial court, and were also unable to demonstrate that they have been deprived of any fundamental rights calling for any indulgence of the SHC.

Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2026